Citation Nr: 21007166 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-57 093 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1963 to November 1965. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). These matters were last before the Board in September 2019 and the Veteran appealed the portion of the decision which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and a low back disorder to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2020, the Court issued an Order granting a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the September 2019 Board decision regarding these two issues for reconsideration of them pursuant to the JMR terms. As an initial matter, the Board notes the issues of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and entitlement to TDIU, which were remanded in the September 2019 Board decision, will be addressed in a separate, forthcoming decision. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disorder is remanded. The August 2020 JMR is of the view that the Board did not adequately consider all favorable evidence of record, namely June 2012 correspondence from the Veteran’s treating physician which favorably states that it was “reasonable to assume that [Veteran’s] hearing loss is service connected secondary to noise exposure” and that it was “at least as likely as not that [Veteran’s] back problem is service connected.” Additionally, the JMR identified a November 2015 statement of the Veteran concerning “a lot of stress on [his] back” from the carrying of heavy tools and in-service noise exposure stemming from work in “tight, noisy spaces.” A review of the record reveals that the VA medical opinions associated with the claims file have not fully considered the concerns discussed by the JMR. Thus, the Board finds that additional development is warranted to procure addendum opinions concerning all positive evidence of record, including the materials cited by the August 2020 JMR. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Associate with the claims file any outstanding relevant VA treatment records, to include all VAMC materials since October 2020. 2. Additionally, assist the Veteran with the procurement of any potentially relevant private treatment records not previously associated with the file. All attempts at assistance with this undertaking should be documented. 3. Following completion of the above to include the association of any relevant materials with the file, procure addendum medical opinions, with additional VA examinations left to the discretion of the medical professional. The VA medical opinions sought concern the Veteran’s: - Bilateral hearing loss; - Lumbar spine. The reviewer is asked to address the following: - identify existing current hearing loss and lumbar spine disabilities, - express an opinion as to whether it is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the any currently diagnosed hearing loss and/or lumbar spine disabilities were due to an in-service disease or injury. In making this assessment, the examiner is to consider the Veteran’s lay statements in support, to specifically to include his November 2015 statement regarding the circumstances of his military duties and the sounds to which he was exposed, as well as any pertinent medical data, to include the June 2012 statement of Nanette A. Ortiz, and/or medical literature, which may reasonably illuminate the medical analysis in the study of this case. Any opinion expressed by the VA examiner should be accompanied by a complete rationale with discussion of the lay statements and prior medical opinions. (Continued on the next page)   If a break in treatment is considered significant in the conclusions expressed, the examiner should explain the reasons for that, and if the VA examiner is unable to offer an opinion without resorting to speculation, a thorough explanation as to why an opinion cannot be rendered should be provided. 4. Readjudicate the claims. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Marcus J. Colicelli The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.